Tackling Australia's carbon dioxide emissions through immigration would seem to be easier for politicians than asking Australians to change their lifestyle.

AROUND 9pm last night, TV cameras filed into our hospitals to capture the first hours of a squalling newborn and its exhausted parents. This is the 23 millionth Australian, they reported, with pictures of the tiny, yawning baby.

But they also directed their lenses to the customs queue at Sydney airport. It is more likely that it is there that our 23 millionth emerged, yawning and blinking in the bright lights after a long journey.

Australia's population is calculated by the number of babies born, plus the number of immigrants arriving, minus the number of people who died.

Sixty per cent of the growth in our population is dictated by immigration. Some 228,000 people made their way to our shores to start a new life in the year ending September 2012.

As I have blogged previously, Australians have a large environmental footprint, relative to people in other countries. When people move here, it is likely that their footprint will rise to a level comparable with other Australians. Their water use, meat consumption, car use and electricity use rise.

Cathy Alexander from Crikey recently did some back-of-the-envelope calculations regarding the carbon impacts of immigration. She found, unsurprisingly, that more people equals more carbon dioxide emissions.

Australia's "body politic is consumed with how to meet the bipartisan target to reduce national emissions to 537 megatonnes of emissions per year in 2020," Alexander said, and suggested that cutting back on a few new Australians would help whoever was in government to meet their climate targets.

"We might well be meeting that target already if we did not have the population boom," she wrote.

While she acknowledged the calculations were rudimentary, she did raise an interesting spectre. Could we see Tony Abbott promising to "stop the boats" in order to prevent the "toxic tax"? Could Abbott's two favourite policy memes be combined into one juicy policy solution?

In the Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia paper that Tony Burke released in 2011 (pdf), migration didn't receive much attention other than some warm fuzzy statements about how important migrants are and how much they bring to the Australian economy.

Climate change was noted as being a problem that would be tackled through the government's carbon price. The link between migration and increased emissions was not explicitly made. But the two are inseparable.

'Decoupling' growth in emissions from growth in the economy has long been a goal of environmental economists. They excitedly point to examples, such as China, where the economy is growing faster than their emissions, to show that green growth is not a fantasy.

However there is less discussion of decoupling emissions from population growth. Countries exist that have a larger population than ours with fewer emissions. They are not all impoverished countries, either. France, for example, has a quality of life comparable to Australia, but according to the UN, it released 363 million tonnes of CO2 in 2009, where Australia released 400 million. France has a population of 65 million - close to three times ours.

In case you might think nuclear power is behind France's achievments, Italy, too, with no domestic nuclear, has a population close to France's, and emissions close to Australia's.

To decouple population growth from emissions growth, Australia needs to be talking about deeply unpopular things: frugality, thrift, and conservation. Talk of such things runs counter to government assurances that the Australian economy is strong and that we are truly a lucky country.

But the rhetoric of belt-tightening is bad for the economy and bad for politicians. The economy needs us spending and shopping to stay strong: it's why Kevin Rudd threw $900 at each of us when the Global Financial Crisis first happened. Recessions are to be avoided at all costs, because politicians worry they will be booted out on the back of one.

In Australia's current political climate it would seem our leaders might find it easier to ask Australians to keep calm and shop on assuring us they will tackle climate change through changes to our immigration numbers.

Asking Australians to tighten our belts so that more migrants might be accommodated within our carbon budget would seem to be the ultimate in politically unpalatable messages.

Actions

Share

Comments (35)

Plus+ :

Italy may have no domestic nuclear but it does import a significant amount of nuclear generated electricity from their French neighbours.

Urban planners will tell you that high density of living (population) makes things like less polluting mass public transit systems such as rail more economically viable.

Decoupling population growth from emisisons is possible and a reduction in our emisions does not need to result in a reduced standard of living. All it takes is a shift in our energy from fossil fuels to sustianable alternatives (we have the technology just lack the will to upset the status quo).

Reducing unnecessary waste of energy and resources does not mean living more frugally, it means living smarter.

poor white trash :

14 May 2013 12:49:07pm

France has no mining, but every single car or cell phone, plus a myriad of other consumer goods, relies on mining to be built. Why isnt that counted in France's total ecological footprint? Because it doesnt suit the ultra green agenda of blaming australia for everything and wanting to impoverish us so that we all live like tasmanians on the dole.

Jim :

There is relative decoupling - less emissions per unit growth -and absolute decoupling, where your emissions stay the same or go down.

Relative decoupling is useless because your absolute emissions are still going up. If you have a 50% carbon tax per unit of economic growth, it only delays the emission of the carbon by the time it takes to double the size of your economy.

Relative decoupling does nothing for climate change. We are already at 400ppm. We need to be actively pulling carbon out of the atmosphere.

Gary Dean of Brisneyland :

03 May 2013 9:59:17am

The Australian Aboriginals had a very good system of beauty, hygiene health and believe it or not, sustainability. They also were over-run by millions of europeans who found it easier to eradicate than to ask if they could share. Keep calm and shop on indeed. I note that the alternative is not considered.

Ngaire :

03 May 2013 6:26:01am

Thanks for giving this topic some attention. I agree with Jenny Goldie but did enjoy the story. Love the last line. Can't help thinking the planet is a goner. Wish more people were as addicted to the ABC as I am.

Steve :

01 May 2013 5:30:25pm

Some many apparently erudite yet divergant views and elitist terminology - deceptive politicians and others - there will never be any answers or solutions - even in a 'so-called' democracy - I'm so impressed with it all - I think this 'educated' being will go fishing while others rant from thier soapbox - time to enjoy the serenity of nature while I still have a slim chance!

Jenny Goldie :

28 Apr 2013 9:38:59am

It's not either or, Sara. Yes, we have to adopt frugality, thrift, and conservation in order to get our emissions down, but we must also stabilise population numbers, both by reducing non-humanitarian immigration but also by adopting non-coercive policies that limit families to two children each.

SEG :

ateday :

25 Apr 2013 8:29:07am

Population growth = Poverty.Small population by world standards says our wonderful PM.World standards are not great with much poverty, overcrowding, pollution, dirty water supplies, starvation, disease, refugees, death and environmental destruction.To name but a few results of TOO MANY PEOPLE.

Vivienne :

24 Apr 2013 5:02:13pm

We can't tackle our anthropogenic climate change while we have an economy that must be kept alive through population growth! It's a contradiction. We may have a large environmental footprint in Australia, but that's because we are a first world country. People are conserving, saving water and using less power etc etc, but boosting our population to 40 million or more is insanity and stupidity. Where's the sustainability our government keeps ranting about when our planet is suffering from numerous "shortages", food security, decline in liquid fuels, and overpopulation. At least the next elections will give the voters a chance to study the policies of independent candidates and other parties with environment and population policies.

Harquebus :

crank :

24 Apr 2013 11:26:24am

Neo-liberal capitalism, with its religious devotion to unending economic growth, not to enrich the masses but to further swell the coffers of the insatiably greedy 'elite', is totally antithetical to the continued existence of human civilization. We are facing a collection of crises, in climate destabilisation, ocean acidification, the general toxification of biospheres by innumerable pollutants etc, that, with their deadly and often totally surprising synergies, will cause a collapse within decades. And all the Right can offer is lies, disinformation, crass denialism and exhortations to plow on, full steam ahead, straight into the ice-berg.

Gary Dean of Brisneyland :

03 May 2013 9:53:02am

The thought is correct Dean, but the outcome of baking two pies is directly equal to input. Maths tells us that two pies equals the input of one pie plus one pie (So does MKR). Getting your neighbour to mow your lawn and swap him a pie is the famous, original barter system and is not profit. You're definitely on the right track but to have classes such as elites there must also be lower classes. Essentially, if we take from something, we must calculate it's demise in maths.

Sceptical Sam :

15 May 2013 12:59:02am

Maths may tell you that " two pies equals the input of one pie plus one pie" Gary the Dean of Brisneyland. On the other hand economics tells you that an economy of scale applies and that the second pie is marginally costed.

No to a linear economic model :

25 Apr 2013 7:19:56pm

Seeing as there are economic models that don't link economic growth with population increase, one wonders why we never here of them?

We need to be encouraging a world of micro-social communities or 'villages' that are small enough to promote a quality of interconnected life as opposed to a bigger and more impersonal and socially detached nation and culture.

Gordon :

07 May 2013 12:41:07am

A religious devotion to growth has been a feature of most societies from the Egyptians and Romans to mediaeval principalities, the 17th c mercantilists, and then Stalin, Mao & co, and even that nice Mr JM Keynes. If they were all antithetical to continued human existence we'd be dead already. Stalin and Mao did knock off one or two in pursuit of growth, but not by application of neoliberal capitalism, I think you'll find..

Andy Coyne :

sbirch :

24 Apr 2013 9:31:28am

Australia is 13 times larger than France. Australia is heavily dependent of Coal for electricity generation, France uses Nuclear power. Australia has no high speed rail...(one can't even catch a train from Melb. to Canberra). France has lots of high speed rail.Shall we all live in shoe box size apartments in the CBD just to reduce our carbon emissions?When are our politicians going to develop some vision beyond the highways & the next election.

Sick of Government :

24 Apr 2013 9:05:57am

They (Economists&pen pushers) tell us we have to keep growing,untill we are just another overpopulated country.Unfortunately money is not going to fix our problems in the future, only a radical change in the way we live on this planet.It only has finite resources which we are rapidly useing up,and i would not rely on politicians for an answer.Politicians are in bed with big business who want us to consume so they can grow.It is up to us to change our ways,but i can't see that happening soon.Food for thought it takes approx 70kg of raw material to make one mobile phone.

UdoHennig :

24 Apr 2013 9:00:45am

To compare France to Australia in terms of CO2 emissions, is very naïve. France has next to no mining activities. Australia is one of the worlds largest mineral exporters. The power generation to run these gigantic industries and ports in terms of fossil fuel consumption is enormous. Total emissions divided by the number of 23 million is not the way to measure per capita output if you want to create credible reporting relative to population numbers. Our green thinkers have never been able to produce realistic and neutral analysis to complex issues.

Ben W. :

24 Apr 2013 5:18:45pm

But surely that's the point? Our prosperity and the lifestyles we lead because of it are based in large part on the wealth we get from mining. If we opted to leave that stuff in the ground, our lifestyles would almost certainly change because we'd have to fall back on economic activities with much slimmer margins, like agriculture.

I'm taking a guess, but look at Tasmania as an example: if the whole nation were structured more like Tassie (which has little(no?) mining), then we'd all live a lot more like them - more frugally. (Median income in Tassie is 2/3 of WA, for example).

I see your point, but I think part of the argument of the article is that the economic basis of our standard of living is also something there should be a debate about.

Christine Markulev :

25 Apr 2013 10:32:42am

I would love to see our society become more generous,thoughtful,environmentally friendly, less wasteful and not just look at the dollor as an only means to keep our lucky country going.Its not just about choice as there are many people who have limited options in making choice. I,m proud of our Labor policies that are trying to make our society fairer and environmentally friendly.

quokka :

It is more than reasonable to compare Australia and France in terms of emissions in electricity generation.

Due to nuclear power, electricity generation in France produces about 85 g CO2/kWh. Australia is more like 800 g CO2 /kWh - around ten times that of France.

Should Australia choose to do so, it would be entirely technically and economically feasible to replace most or all of the coal burners with nuclear power. This would result in a sharp drop in total emissions from the whole economy.

Using the presence of heavy industry to justify the continued huge levels of emissions is feeble.

Pangelique :

25 Apr 2013 6:08:53pm

Our political "leaders" won't broach the need for reduced consumption, but individuals and collectives who appreciate our situation are changing behaviours anyway. The grass roots movement to simpler living - for resilience against crises and healthier happier lives - is growing exponentially, under the radar, all around the globe. Look up Transition Initiatives and permaculture for example; alternative models of local and sustainable economies, coupled with lessened desire for meaningless acquisitiveness. Empowering stuff for the individual who wants to reduce their damage to the future of our kids and the biosphere!

Robert Cotgrove :

26 Apr 2013 5:58:49pm

Two comments:(a) the increase in population is due to births plus net immigration minus deaths. The third element of this simple equation tends to be ignored. The UN medium forecast predicts that in the 40 years between 2010 and 2050 the world's population will increase by 2.4 billion. 2 billion of that increase (83%) will occur because of an expansion in the population cohort over 40 years of age; that is, as a result of people living longer due to better nutrition and access to better health and medical services. All people in that category by 2050 are already with us. Cause for despair, or celebration?(b) Migrants coming here increase their CO2 emissions. Of course! They benefit from an improved standard of living. Do we want to deny them that privilege? CO2 emissions in developing countries (the countries where asylum seekers come from) are rising at a faster rate than levels in developed countries (where asylum seekers come to). We need to think in terms of trends, not snap-shots in time.

Gary Dean of Brisneyland :

03 May 2013 4:40:15pm

Yes, very true here. Also, Australia needs to look at the Nickel Issue there in Townsville, called Queensland Nickel. no secret that the nickel that's processed there is foreign nickel, ie nickel from Indonesia and such. It takes a huge amount of water to process nickel and I imagine also a lot of coal-powered energy. Now, are those Greenhouse emissions also included in Australia's total emissions?? The water btw, comes from Australia's underground aquifers!! Further to this my understanding is farmers can't use that water because Queensland Nickel controls all water leases there. Who's zooming who?? Yet, in all of this, who owns Queensland Nickel? Why, it's Clive Palmer. Isn't Clive also a coal miner?? Just who is zooming who??

David Arthur :

03 May 2013 8:02:57pm

It's worth noting that Australia IMPORTS vast quantities of fossil fuels in the form of liquid transport fuels. When (not if) Australia replaces those fossil fuel imports with domestically-grown algae-based fuels, Australia will be much less dependent on an export trade that will cease when (not if) China gets off needing coal.

We should also reflect that Australia exports ~$35 billion of iron ore per annum, and the ~$25 billion per annum of metallurgical coal used to convert that iron ore to ~$181 billion worth of iron and steel. There's a market opportunity here - Australia should convert that iron ore to iron and steel IN Australia before export - this would relieve the Chinese of huge quantities of industrial pollution, for one thing, as well as making Australia an additional ~$122 billion of export income.

But surely this would mean that Australia burns a whole lot more coal? Well, not necessarily: what not many people realise is, iron and steel can be made from refined iron ore the same way as aluminium is made from alumina: with electricity.

But surely the electricity would require that Australia burns a whole lot more coal? Well, not necessarily: what not many people realise is, the 24/7 baseload electricity required for such operations can also be generated using nuclear power - just like the French do with alumina, and just as Australia should do with its alumina (Australia exports alumina, where it should be exporting aluminium, which would earn an additional ~$15 billion.

Could it be that it is Australia's mining industry that is trashing Australia's economy?

It doesn't end there, either. Exporting iron and steel, and aluminium, in place of coal, iron ore and alumina also means that the total exported tonnes of cargo is cut in half - in turn, that means a hell of a lot less fuel oil has to be imported, and the remainder of oil imports could be replaced either by more of the domestically-grown algae-derived oil, or by Australian-sourced nuclear power.

Let's now place all this in the context of Australia's total economy.

What we have in Australia are an until recently booming mining sector energised by international raw material demand. This is quite separate from the rest of the economy, for which the SOLE driver is population growth through immigration.

Cross-subsidisation could be effected between these sectors if appropriate taxation and royalties were in place; to do that, however, would be to compromise mining industry competitiveness. As a result, this "unprecedented" mining boom is largely irrelevant to the rest of the economy, which is essentially that of a nation in decline.

We either get used to it, or do something about it; perhaps even what I've outlined above.

Twitter

About the Editor

Sara Phillips

Sara Phillips has been an environment journalist and editor for eleven years. Learning the trade on environmental trade publications, she went on to be deputy editor of 'Cosmos' magazine and editor of 'G', a green lifestyle magazine. She has won several awards for her work including the 2006 Reuters/IUCN award for excellence in environmental reporting and the 2008 Bell Award for editor of the year.

Subscribe

Receive updates from the ABC Environment website. To subscribe, type your email address into
the field below and click 'Subscribe'.

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Environment. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.

Best of abc.net.au

Decriminalising adultery

After 61 years, South Korea has decriminalised adultery; a crime formerly punishable by imprisonment.